Settler-State Apologies to Indigenous Peoples: A Normative Framework and Comparative Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES, an increasing number of states have issued official apologies to Indigenous peoples. The first wave of state apologies to Indigenous peoples began in 1991 when Canada’s assistant deputy minister for Indian affairs offered what may have been the first governmental apology to Indigenous peoples, and the first of three apologies Canada has offered for its century-long Indian Residential Schools program that removed Indigenous children from their homes and forcibly placed them in church-run Residential Schools. Shortly thereafter, in 1993, the United States Congress issued an official apology for “the illegal overthrow” of Hawaiian sovereignty in 1893. This non–legally binding apology, a joint resolution passed by Congress and signed in a small ceremony by U.S. President Bill Clinton the very same day, acknowledged the overthrow of Hawaiian sovereignty, but it also carefully sidestepped Hawaiian sovereignty claims and did not provide any federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. In 1997 and 1998, the kings of Norway and Sweden each offered formal apologies to the Sami people for years of widespread discrimination and injustices committed against them, including forced dislocation, resettlement, and assimilation programs. Also in 1998, Canada’s Indian affairs minister Jane Stewart issued a “Statement of Reconciliation,” Canada’s second official “apology” to Aboriginal peoples, which was widely criticized by Aboriginal people as insincere and inadequate. Then, in September 2000, at a ceremony marking the 175th anniversary of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), BIA director Kevin Gover gave an apology speech expressing “profound sorrow” for the “historical conduct of this agency.” In 2008 and 2009, a fresh wave of apologies to Indigenous people washed over the Anglosphere. On February 13, 2008, Australia’s newly elected Labour prime minister Kevin Rudd opened his first session of Parliament with his government’s first official act. With crowds gathered outside and his image broadcast live on television throughout the country, the prime minister rose and delivered an official apology on behalf of the government of Australia to
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".